As the world cooks, why have our political leaders gone cold on global warming?

But on becoming prime minister, Carney’s first act was to dump Canada’s unpopular carbon tax. “This will make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians, but it is part of a much bigger set of measures that this government is taking to ensure that we fight against climate change, that our companies are competitive, and the country moves forward,” he said. Even for Carney, the political reality trumped the climatic one.

So what happened?

In the years between Glasgow and Carney’s election, the world had taken a dark turn. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused an energy crisis. Europe, threatened with shortages, turned back to gas and coal. Global recovery from the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 supercharged emissions. China, despite its staggering success in the vast deployment of renewables, stimulated industries that demanded steel, concrete and in turn, coal power.

While the wealth – and numbers – of billionaires exploded, middle classes were battered and populism surged. Conservative political movements surged, backed by fossil fuel lobbyists determined that their industry might extend its limited lifespan.

In Australia, the Coalition prepared for this weekend’s election by developing a policy to replace coal-fired power stations with nuclear, which it claims will allow it to meet mid-century Paris targets (but not interim targets Australia has agreed to), but which the Australian Climate Change Authority estimates will lead to an extra two billion tonnes of carbon emissions by prolonging the life of coal power. It’s a policy backed by Australian miners.

Loading

Writing in these pages earlier this year, Christopher Pyne praised Dutton’s nuclear gambit as ingenious, not because he believed that a nuclear power plant would ever be built in Australia – he doesn’t – and not because it will cut any emissions – it won’t – but because he had “united the Liberal party room” in support of it.

It is a “gem” of a policy, wrote Pyne, perhaps inadvertently highlighting the psychic difference between those who would govern, and those who are governed.

Labor has plans to replace coal power faster by accelerating the deployment of gas-backed renewables, batteries and hydro. But it, too, backs the expansion of Australian exports of fossil fuels. Like Carney’s Liberals, it is determined not to provide its opposition with an angle of attack. It has addressed the politics and fudged the physics.

Meanwhile, the terrible costs of climate change mount rapidly. The past 10 years are the hottest on record and the past two are the hottest of those. In Australia, the average temperature is already 1.5 degrees higher than it was in 1910. According to a study published by Nature, the economic impact of climate change between 2000 and 2019 totalled $US2.86 trillion, averaging $US143 billion annually.

In the face of the obvious and dangerous changes to their world, the overwhelming majority of people want more climate action, 89 per cent of them according to a new study published in Nature.

But the Australian election campaign, like the Canadian before it, and the US before that, shows that politicians understand that even if people want climate action, what they want first is relief to their immediate financial circumstances.

Even though they can see that the tragedy is deepening, and the horizon is shrinking.

Nick O’Malley is national environment and climate editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.